BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 444/2004 Filed on 26.11.2004

Dated : 29.11.2008

Complainants:

1. The Consumer Protection Council of Kerala, T.C 5/1616, Survey School Road, Peroorkada, Thiruvananthapuram (represented by its General Secretary)

    

2. P. Rajamma, Ratheesh Bhavan, Thannimoodu, Aryanadu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram District.

    

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Branch Office, Nedumangadu P.O.

    

2. The Secretary, Kerala State Housing Board, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

    

(By adv. G. Nissar)

This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2008, the Forum on 29.11.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT.BEENAKUMARI. A: MEMBER

The facts leading to the case is that the 2^nd complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 20,400/- from the 1^st

opposite party bearing loan No. L 2038/86-II after mortgaging her landed property. The principal account and interest Rs. 17110/- was completely repaid by the loanee. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party executed a release deed No. 2482/03 on 26.09.2003. But the 1^st opposite party did not return the

original documents mortgaged which includes the title deed of her landed property and original receipt for payment of land revenue. A registered letter was issued to the Assistant Secretary on 29.03.2004 but it was not replied. Sri. Ravindran Nair, the husband of the 2^nd complainant approached the opposite

parties on seven occasions but not reply was given by the opposite parties and they continued to be deaf. Therefore 2^nd complainant approached the Consumer Protection Council of Kerala, a registered

consumer organization and caused to send a registered notice on 12.08.2004. At this point of time they woke up and on 14.09.2004 gave a reply to the Consumer Protection Council of Kerala that the documents are being searched for. Till date documents have not been returned. Thereafter an amendment petition was filed by the complainant that if the opposite parties are unable to return the original document Rs. 10000/- more be paid as compensation. The amendment petition allowed the Forum. The 2^nd complainant has been put to much difficulties and mental agony because of the

deficiency in service as defined in Sec. 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate their act.

The Assistant Secretary, the 1^st opposite party in his version, filed on his own behalf and on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party. The opposite parties admitted the transaction. They stated that after closure of

the loan account the draft release deed issued to the loanee on the same day, since the original mortgage deed is seen available in the loan file. She has returned the draft duly typed and the same issued for execution with a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Aryanad. She has informed that the release deed has been registered vide Reg. No. 2482/03 at SRO Aryanad on 22.10.2003 and requested for the original deed. On a detailed examination of the loan file, it is seen that the original deed is not available in the file. The opposite party has made earnest efforts to trace out the deed, but it was in vain. They stated that there was no specific intention to not return the original deed to the loanee after closure of her account and they assured that as and when the said deed is traced out the same will be handed over to the complainant without any delay. And also they have exposed their willingness to give a certified copy of the same with a certificate showing that the original of the said document has been deposited with them and loan obtained has already been closed. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. They have also filed additional version against the amended portion.

The 2^nd complainant has filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1 and the opposite party cross

examined her. The opposite party has also been filed affidavit. The complainant has produced 2 documents in this case.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

3. Costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the grievance of the complainant is that after closing the loan the opposite party did not return the original title deed of the property proposed for loan. Without that document the complainant has been put to much difficulties and mental agony. The opposite party have admitted the deal and there is no dispute over it. The complainants in this case have succeeded to prove their case with sufficient pleadings and evidence. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the release deed executed by the opposite party in favour of the complainant. This document is sufficient to prove the transaction. The opposite parties are liable to return the original title deed to the complainant after executing the release deed. The document marked as Ext. P2 is the copy of notice issued by the 1^st complainant for and on behalf of the 2^nd complainant to the opposite parties, demanding to return the original deed. As

per the complainant, the original title deed is most valuable one. Every one knows the importance of the original deeds. Now-a-days it is very essential for availing a loan. It is essential to provide the original documents of the property proposed for availing loan. Hence the lose of the document has very seriously affected the complainant. The opposite parties are legally bound to return the documents after closing the loan. In this case the opposite parties have not performed their part promptly. The misplacement of the document is sufficient proof for their negligence and deficiency in their service. Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate their act. The act of the opposite parties had not only caused the complainant to suffer a great deal of mental agony but also deprived her of her right to use the deed for future transactions. One can understand the mental agony, hardship and difficulties of such a complainant when one puts himself in the place of the complainant. Moreover, since the opposite parties have failed to trace out the document so far, it has to be presumed that the document has been irrecoverably lost. Though the loss cannot be commuted in terms of money the complainant has to be compensated for the sufferings she had to undergo. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for her sufferings due to the lose of the original title deed. And also shall pay Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) as cost. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 9% annual interest per annum shall carry the above said amounts till the realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 29^th November 2008.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 444/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - P. Rajamma

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Release Deed dated 26.09.2003.

P2 - Photocopy of registered with A/D letter dated 12.08.2004

issued by the 1^st complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT